Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小，
##   (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levels

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 2501	control, N = 1251	treatment, N = 1251	p-value2
age	250	51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75)	50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75)	51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75)	0.559
gender	250				0.327
f		204 (82%)	99 (79%)	105 (84%)
m		46 (18%)	26 (21%)	20 (16%)
occupation	250				0.711
day_training		6 (2.4%)	2 (1.6%)	4 (3.2%)
full_time		29 (12%)	14 (11%)	15 (12%)
homemaker		32 (13%)	15 (12%)	17 (14%)
other		4 (1.6%)	1 (0.8%)	3 (2.4%)
part_time		43 (17%)	23 (18%)	20 (16%)
retired		61 (24%)	28 (22%)	33 (26%)
self_employ		8 (3.2%)	4 (3.2%)	4 (3.2%)
shelter		4 (1.6%)	4 (3.2%)	0 (0%)
student		4 (1.6%)	2 (1.6%)	2 (1.6%)
t_and_e		4 (1.6%)	3 (2.4%)	1 (0.8%)
unemploy		55 (22%)	29 (23%)	26 (21%)
marital	250				0.776
cohabitation		2 (0.8%)	0 (0%)	2 (1.6%)
divore		27 (11%)	15 (12%)	12 (9.6%)
in_relationship		6 (2.4%)	4 (3.2%)	2 (1.6%)
married		76 (30%)	35 (28%)	41 (33%)
none		117 (47%)	59 (47%)	58 (46%)
seperation		3 (1.2%)	2 (1.6%)	1 (0.8%)
widow		19 (7.6%)	10 (8.0%)	9 (7.2%)
edu	250				0.690
bachelor		54 (22%)	24 (19%)	30 (24%)
diploma		42 (17%)	25 (20%)	17 (14%)
hd_ad		6 (2.4%)	4 (3.2%)	2 (1.6%)
none		1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.8%)
postgraduate		17 (6.8%)	9 (7.2%)	8 (6.4%)
primary		22 (8.8%)	9 (7.2%)	13 (10%)
secondary_1_3		29 (12%)	17 (14%)	12 (9.6%)
secondary_4_5		66 (26%)	31 (25%)	35 (28%)
secondary_6_7		13 (5.2%)	6 (4.8%)	7 (5.6%)
fam_income	250
10001_12000		10 (4.0%)	3 (2.4%)	7 (5.6%)
12001_14000		12 (4.8%)	4 (3.2%)	8 (6.4%)
14001_16000		12 (4.8%)	4 (3.2%)	8 (6.4%)
16001_18000		5 (2.0%)	3 (2.4%)	2 (1.6%)
18001_20000		12 (4.8%)	8 (6.4%)	4 (3.2%)
20001_above		43 (17%)	26 (21%)	17 (14%)
2001_4000		37 (15%)	18 (14%)	19 (15%)
4001_6000		31 (12%)	14 (11%)	17 (14%)
6001_8000		22 (8.8%)	13 (10%)	9 (7.2%)
8001_10000		20 (8.0%)	11 (8.8%)	9 (7.2%)
below_2000		46 (18%)	21 (17%)	25 (20%)
medication	250	224 (90%)	112 (90%)	112 (90%)	>0.999
onset_duration	250	15.12 ± 11.18 (0 - 63)	14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56)	15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63)	0.817
onset_age	250	36.05 ± 14.81 (-18 - 72)	35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72)	36.37 ± 15.66 (-18 - 68)	0.730
diagnosis_schizophrenia	250	50 (20%)	25 (20%)	25 (20%)	>0.999
diagnosis_delusional	250	13 (5.2%)	7 (5.6%)	6 (4.8%)	0.776
diagnosis_schizoaffective	250	1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.8%)	>0.999
diagnosis_schizoid	250	1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.8%)	>0.999
diagnosis_transient_psychotic	250	2 (0.8%)	1 (0.8%)	1 (0.8%)	>0.999
diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic	250
no		250 (100%)	125 (100%)	125 (100%)
diagnosis_depression	250	138 (55%)	69 (55%)	69 (55%)	>0.999
diagnosis_bipolar	250	24 (9.6%)	10 (8.0%)	14 (11%)	0.390
diagnosis_anxiety	250	87 (35%)	46 (37%)	41 (33%)	0.507
diagnosis_phobia	250	10 (4.0%)	3 (2.4%)	7 (5.6%)	0.197
diagnosis_personality_disorders	250	3 (1.2%)	0 (0%)	3 (2.4%)	0.247
diagnosis_substance_related_addictive	250	1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.8%)	>0.999
diagnosis_other	250	29 (12%)	17 (14%)	12 (9.6%)	0.323
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 2501	control, N = 1251	treatment, N = 1251	p-value2
recovery_stage_a	250	3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)	3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)	3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)	0.406
recovery_stage_b	250	17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24)	17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24)	17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24)	0.835
ras_confidence	250	29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45)	29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45)	30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45)	0.637
ras_willingness	250	11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15)	11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15)	11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15)	0.905
ras_goal	250	17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25)	17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)	17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25)	0.413
ras_reliance	250	13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20)	13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20)	13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20)	0.614
ras_domination	250	9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15)	9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)	9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15)	0.206
symptom	250	30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70)	31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70)	30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56)	0.301
slof_work	250	22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30)	22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30)	22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30)	0.989
slof_relationship	250	24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35)	24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35)	25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35)	0.252
satisfaction	250	20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35)	19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35)	21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35)	0.136
mhc_emotional	250	10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19)	10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18)	11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19)	0.459
mhc_social	250	15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30)	15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30)	15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30)	>0.999
mhc_psychological	250	21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36)	21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36)	21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36)	0.715
resilisnce	250	16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)	16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30)	16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30)	0.177
social_provision	250	13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20)	13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)	13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20)	0.032
els_value_living	250	16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25)	16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25)	17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25)	0.331
els_life_fulfill	250	12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20)	12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20)	13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20)	0.100
els	250	29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45)	29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45)	30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45)	0.154
social_connect	250	27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48)	27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48)	26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48)	0.293
shs_agency	250	14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24)	13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24)	14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24)	0.110
shs_pathway	250	15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24)	15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24)	16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24)	0.057
shs	250	30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48)	29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48)	31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48)	0.070
esteem	250	12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20)	12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20)	12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20)	0.732
mlq_search	250	14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21)	14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21)	15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21)	0.105
mlq_presence	250	13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21)	13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21)	13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21)	0.396
mlq	250	28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42)	27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42)	28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42)	0.183
empower	250	19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30)	18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30)	19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)	0.351
ismi_resistance	250	14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20)	14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20)	14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)	0.981
ismi_discrimation	250	11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20)	11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20)	11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20)	0.823
sss_affective	250	10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18)	10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)	10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)	0.629
sss_behavior	250	10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)	10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18)	10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)	0.867
sss_cognitive	250	8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18)	8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)	9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18)	0.402
sss	250	29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54)	29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)	29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)	0.682
1Mean ± SD (Range)
2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group	Characteristic	Beta	SE1	95% CI1	p-value
recovery_stage_a	(Intercept)	3.20	0.109	2.99, 3.41
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.128	0.154	-0.431, 0.175	0.408
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.008	0.139	-0.265, 0.281	0.955
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.311	0.201	-0.082, 0.705	0.123
	Pseudo R square	0.008
recovery_stage_b	(Intercept)	17.9	0.269	17.4, 18.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.080	0.381	-0.826, 0.666	0.834
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.176	0.265	-0.696, 0.344	0.507
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.01	0.384	0.262, 1.77	0.009
	Pseudo R square	0.012
ras_confidence	(Intercept)	29.7	0.505	28.7, 30.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.336	0.715	-1.06, 1.74	0.639
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.772	0.431	-0.073, 1.62	0.075
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.28	0.624	0.059, 2.51	0.041
	Pseudo R square	0.023
ras_willingness	(Intercept)	11.6	0.186	11.3, 12.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.032	0.263	-0.483, 0.547	0.903
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.010	0.186	-0.373, 0.354	0.958
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.359	0.268	-0.168, 0.885	0.183
	Pseudo R square	0.005
ras_goal	(Intercept)	17.2	0.293	16.6, 17.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.344	0.415	-0.468, 1.16	0.407
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.338	0.276	-0.203, 0.879	0.222
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.480	0.399	-0.302, 1.26	0.231
	Pseudo R square	0.015
ras_reliance	(Intercept)	13.1	0.263	12.6, 13.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.184	0.372	-0.546, 0.914	0.622
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.332	0.229	-0.117, 0.781	0.148
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.370	0.332	-0.280, 1.02	0.266
	Pseudo R square	0.011
ras_domination	(Intercept)	9.95	0.215	9.53, 10.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.392	0.304	-0.988, 0.204	0.198
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.055	0.229	-0.395, 0.504	0.812
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.811	0.332	0.161, 1.46	0.015
	Pseudo R square	0.015
symptom	(Intercept)	31.5	0.873	29.8, 33.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.29	1.234	-3.71, 1.13	0.298
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.56	0.726	-2.98, -0.136	0.033
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.130	1.051	-1.93, 2.19	0.902
	Pseudo R square	0.009
slof_work	(Intercept)	22.1	0.409	21.3, 22.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.008	0.579	-1.14, 1.13	0.989
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.364	0.375	-0.371, 1.10	0.333
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.193	0.543	-0.871, 1.26	0.722
	Pseudo R square	0.003
slof_relationship	(Intercept)	24.5	0.513	23.5, 25.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.840	0.725	-0.581, 2.26	0.248
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.205	0.463	-0.704, 1.11	0.659
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.551	0.671	-0.764, 1.87	0.413
	Pseudo R square	0.010
satisfaction	(Intercept)	19.7	0.646	18.4, 20.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.37	0.913	-0.422, 3.16	0.135
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.17	0.537	0.116, 2.22	0.031
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.031	0.777	-1.49, 1.56	0.968
	Pseudo R square	0.015
mhc_emotional	(Intercept)	10.6	0.334	9.99, 11.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.352	0.472	-0.573, 1.28	0.456
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.440	0.273	-0.096, 0.975	0.109
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.026	0.396	-0.801, 0.750	0.948
	Pseudo R square	0.005
mhc_social	(Intercept)	15.1	0.545	14.1, 16.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.000	0.771	-1.51, 1.51	1.00
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.850	0.468	-0.068, 1.77	0.071
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.198	0.678	-1.13, 1.53	0.771
	Pseudo R square	0.006
mhc_psychological	(Intercept)	21.6	0.629	20.3, 22.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.320	0.890	-1.42, 2.06	0.719
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.16	0.520	0.140, 2.18	0.027
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.301	0.754	-1.78, 1.18	0.690
	Pseudo R square	0.005
resilisnce	(Intercept)	16.2	0.391	15.4, 16.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.760	0.553	-0.324, 1.84	0.170
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.805	0.362	0.096, 1.52	0.027
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.625	0.524	-0.402, 1.65	0.234
	Pseudo R square	0.029
social_provision	(Intercept)	13.2	0.251	12.7, 13.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.744	0.355	0.048, 1.44	0.037
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.174	0.232	-0.629, 0.281	0.453
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.516	0.336	-0.143, 1.17	0.127
	Pseudo R square	0.030
els_value_living	(Intercept)	16.8	0.285	16.2, 17.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.392	0.403	-0.398, 1.18	0.331
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.327	0.255	-0.173, 0.827	0.201
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.366	0.369	-0.357, 1.09	0.322
	Pseudo R square	0.014
els_life_fulfill	(Intercept)	12.4	0.295	11.8, 13.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.696	0.417	-0.121, 1.51	0.096
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.257	0.249	-0.232, 0.746	0.304
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.317	0.361	-0.391, 1.02	0.382
	Pseudo R square	0.019
els	(Intercept)	29.2	0.539	28.1, 30.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.09	0.762	-0.406, 2.58	0.155
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.595	0.436	-0.259, 1.45	0.174
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.671	0.631	-0.565, 1.91	0.289
	Pseudo R square	0.018
social_connect	(Intercept)	27.9	0.819	26.3, 29.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.22	1.159	-3.49, 1.05	0.295
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.643	0.665	-1.95, 0.660	0.335
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.06	0.963	-3.95, -0.171	0.034
	Pseudo R square	0.022
shs_agency	(Intercept)	13.8	0.449	13.0, 14.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.01	0.635	-0.236, 2.25	0.113
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.306	0.354	-0.389, 1.00	0.390
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.683	0.514	-0.324, 1.69	0.185
	Pseudo R square	0.021
shs_pathway	(Intercept)	15.3	0.365	14.6, 16.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.01	0.516	-0.004, 2.02	0.052
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.435	0.320	-0.191, 1.06	0.175
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.454	0.463	-0.453, 1.36	0.328
	Pseudo R square	0.027
shs	(Intercept)	29.2	0.776	27.6, 30.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.02	1.097	-0.134, 4.17	0.067
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.740	0.614	-0.465, 1.94	0.230
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.13	0.890	-0.614, 2.88	0.206
	Pseudo R square	0.026
esteem	(Intercept)	12.8	0.140	12.5, 13.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.072	0.198	-0.459, 0.315	0.716
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.189	0.165	-0.512, 0.133	0.252
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.194	0.238	-0.272, 0.660	0.415
	Pseudo R square	0.002
mlq_search	(Intercept)	14.4	0.310	13.8, 15.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.720	0.439	-0.140, 1.58	0.102
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.724	0.336	0.066, 1.38	0.032
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.732	0.485	-1.68, 0.218	0.133
	Pseudo R square	0.009
mlq_presence	(Intercept)	13.2	0.380	12.4, 13.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.464	0.538	-0.590, 1.52	0.389
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.529	0.363	-0.182, 1.24	0.147
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.375	0.525	-0.655, 1.40	0.476
	Pseudo R square	0.012
mlq	(Intercept)	27.5	0.621	26.3, 28.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.18	0.879	-0.538, 2.91	0.179
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.26	0.618	0.045, 2.47	0.044
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.367	0.894	-2.12, 1.38	0.682
	Pseudo R square	0.011
empower	(Intercept)	18.8	0.405	18.1, 19.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.528	0.573	-0.594, 1.65	0.357
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.744	0.349	0.060, 1.43	0.034
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.159	0.505	-0.832, 1.15	0.754
	Pseudo R square	0.012
ismi_resistance	(Intercept)	14.4	0.226	13.9, 14.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.008	0.320	-0.635, 0.619	0.980
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.173	0.258	-0.333, 0.679	0.503
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.654	0.373	-0.076, 1.38	0.081
	Pseudo R square	0.015
ismi_discrimation	(Intercept)	11.8	0.275	11.3, 12.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.088	0.388	-0.849, 0.673	0.821
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.438	0.288	-1.00, 0.125	0.129
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.655	0.416	-1.47, 0.160	0.117
	Pseudo R square	0.020
sss_affective	(Intercept)	10.4	0.326	9.76, 11.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.224	0.461	-0.679, 1.13	0.627
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.404	0.282	-0.957, 0.150	0.154
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.742	0.409	-1.54, 0.059	0.071
	Pseudo R square	0.013
sss_behavior	(Intercept)	10.2	0.333	9.52, 10.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.080	0.471	-1.00, 0.843	0.865
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.656	0.287	-1.22, -0.095	0.023
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.193	0.415	-1.01, 0.621	0.643
	Pseudo R square	0.010
sss_cognitive	(Intercept)	8.71	0.335	8.06, 9.37
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.408	0.473	-0.520, 1.34	0.389
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.451	0.285	-1.01, 0.108	0.116
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.577	0.413	-1.39, 0.234	0.165
	Pseudo R square	0.011
sss	(Intercept)	29.3	0.936	27.5, 31.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.552	1.324	-2.04, 3.15	0.677
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.49	0.729	-2.92, -0.065	0.042
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.46	1.056	-3.53, 0.605	0.167
	Pseudo R square	0.012
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.37) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.94e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(412) = 29.31, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(412) = -0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 7.80e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.28], t(412) = 0.06, p = 0.955; Std. beta = 6.40e-03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.23])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.70], t(412) = 1.55, p = 0.121; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.58])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(412) = 66.43, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.67], t(412) = -0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.34], t(412) = -0.66, p = 0.506; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.12])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [0.26, 1.77], t(412) = 2.64, p = 0.008; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [0.09, 0.59])

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.69 (95% CI [28.70, 30.68], t(412) = 58.74, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.74], t(412) = 0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.62], t(412) = 1.79, p = 0.073; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.29])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.28, 95% CI [0.06, 2.51], t(412) = 2.05, p = 0.040; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [0.01, 0.45])

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.99e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.26, 11.99], t(412) = 62.52, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.55], t(412) = 0.12, p = 0.903; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.26])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -9.71e-03, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.35], t(412) = -0.05, p = 0.958; Std. beta = -4.70e-03, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.17])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.88], t(412) = 1.34, p = 0.182; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.43])

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.18 (95% CI [16.61, 17.76], t(412) = 58.63, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.16], t(412) = 0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.35])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.88], t(412) = 1.23, p = 0.220; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.27])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.26], t(412) = 1.20, p = 0.229; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.39])

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(412) = 49.91, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.91], t(412) = 0.49, p = 0.621; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.31])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.78], t(412) = 1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.26])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.02], t(412) = 1.12, p = 0.265; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.34])

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.53, 10.37], t(412) = 46.30, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.20], t(412) = -1.29, p = 0.197; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.08])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.50], t(412) = 0.24, p = 0.811; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.21])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [0.16, 1.46], t(412) = 2.45, p = 0.014; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [0.07, 0.61])

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.38e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.50 (95% CI [29.79, 33.21], t(412) = 36.09, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.71, 1.13], t(412) = -1.04, p = 0.297; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.56, 95% CI [-2.98, -0.14], t(412) = -2.15, p = 0.032; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.31, -0.01])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.93, 2.19], t(412) = 0.12, p = 0.902; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.23])

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.55e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.87], t(412) = 53.88, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.13], t(412) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.74e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.37, 1.10], t(412) = 0.97, p = 0.332; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.24])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.87, 1.26], t(412) = 0.36, p = 0.722; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.27])

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.50, 25.51], t(412) = 47.79, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.58, 2.26], t(412) = 1.16, p = 0.247; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.39])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.70, 1.11], t(412) = 0.44, p = 0.659; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.19])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.87], t(412) = 0.82, p = 0.412; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.32])

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.66 (95% CI [18.40, 20.93], t(412) = 30.45, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.42, 3.16], t(412) = 1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [0.12, 2.22], t(412) = 2.18, p = 0.030; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [0.02, 0.31])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.49, 1.56], t(412) = 0.04, p = 0.968; Std. beta = 4.36e-03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.22])

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.12e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.99, 11.30], t(412) = 31.92, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.28], t(412) = 0.75, p = 0.456; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.34])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.98], t(412) = 1.61, p = 0.108; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.26])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.75], t(412) = -0.06, p = 0.948; Std. beta = -6.92e-03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.20])

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.86e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.06, 16.20], t(412) = 27.76, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.14e-13, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.51], t(412) = -2.77e-13, p > .999; Std. beta = 1.11e-15, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.77], t(412) = 1.82, p = 0.069; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-1.13, 1.53], t(412) = 0.29, p = 0.770; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.26])

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.24e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.32, 22.79], t(412) = 34.25, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.06], t(412) = 0.36, p = 0.719; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.16, 95% CI [0.14, 2.18], t(412) = 2.23, p = 0.026; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.02, 0.32])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.78, 1.18], t(412) = -0.40, p = 0.689; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.17])

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.41, 16.94], t(412) = 41.38, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.84], t(412) = 1.37, p = 0.169; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [0.10, 1.52], t(412) = 2.22, p = 0.026; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [0.02, 0.34])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.65], t(412) = 1.19, p = 0.233; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.37])

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.68, 13.66], t(412) = 52.44, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.44], t(412) = 2.10, p = 0.036; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.50])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.28], t(412) = -0.75, p = 0.452; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.10])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.17], t(412) = 1.53, p = 0.125; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.41])

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(412) = 58.82, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.18], t(412) = 0.97, p = 0.331; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.83], t(412) = 1.28, p = 0.199; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.26])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.36, 1.09], t(412) = 0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.34])

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.99], t(412) = 42.08, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.51], t(412) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.75], t(412) = 1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.23])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.39, 1.02], t(412) = 0.88, p = 0.380; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.31])

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.11, 30.22], t(412) = 54.11, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.58], t(412) = 1.43, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.45], t(412) = 1.37, p = 0.172; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.24])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.91], t(412) = 1.06, p = 0.287; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.32])

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.88 (95% CI [26.27, 29.49], t(412) = 34.03, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.49, 1.05], t(412) = -1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.11])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.95, 0.66], t(412) = -0.97, p = 0.334; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.07])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.06, 95% CI [-3.95, -0.17], t(412) = -2.14, p = 0.033; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.42, -0.02])

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.96, 14.72], t(412) = 30.84, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.24, 2.25], t(412) = 1.59, p = 0.112; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.39, 1.00], t(412) = 0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.20])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.69], t(412) = 1.33, p = 0.184; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.33])

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.61, 16.04], t(412) = 41.97, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-4.26e-03, 2.02], t(412) = 1.95, p = 0.051; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-1.03e-03, 0.49])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.06], t(412) = 1.36, p = 0.173; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.26])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.36], t(412) = 0.98, p = 0.326; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.33])

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.65, 30.69], t(412) = 37.60, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.13, 4.17], t(412) = 1.84, p = 0.066; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.47])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.94], t(412) = 1.20, p = 0.229; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.22])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.13, 95% CI [-0.61, 2.88], t(412) = 1.27, p = 0.204; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.33])

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.82e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.53, 13.07], t(412) = 91.65, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.32], t(412) = -0.36, p = 0.715; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.20])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.13], t(412) = -1.15, p = 0.251; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.09])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.66], t(412) = 0.82, p = 0.414; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.43])

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.94e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.75, 14.97], t(412) = 46.27, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.58], t(412) = 1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.45])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [0.07, 1.38], t(412) = 2.16, p = 0.031; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [0.02, 0.40])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-1.68, 0.22], t(412) = -1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.06])

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.90], t(412) = 34.57, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.52], t(412) = 0.86, p = 0.388; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.18, 1.24], t(412) = 1.46, p = 0.145; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.29])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.65, 1.40], t(412) = 0.71, p = 0.476; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.33])

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.51 (95% CI [26.29, 28.73], t(412) = 44.28, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.54, 2.91], t(412) = 1.35, p = 0.178; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.26, 95% CI [0.04, 2.47], t(412) = 2.03, p = 0.042; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [6.40e-03, 0.35])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-2.12, 1.38], t(412) = -0.41, p = 0.682; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.20])

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.85 (95% CI [18.05, 19.64], t(412) = 46.55, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.65], t(412) = 0.92, p = 0.356; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.06, 1.43], t(412) = 2.13, p = 0.033; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.01, 0.32])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.15], t(412) = 0.31, p = 0.753; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.26])

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.92, 14.80], t(412) = 63.44, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.62], t(412) = -0.02, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.15e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.24])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.68], t(412) = 0.67, p = 0.502; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.27])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.08, 1.38], t(412) = 1.76, p = 0.079; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.55])

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [11.25, 12.33], t(412) = 42.94, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.67], t(412) = -0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.13], t(412) = -1.52, p = 0.128; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.04])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.47, 0.16], t(412) = -1.57, p = 0.115; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.05])

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(412) = 31.92, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.13], t(412) = 0.49, p = 0.627; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.15], t(412) = -1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.04])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-1.54, 0.06], t(412) = -1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.02])

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(412) = 30.56, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.84], t(412) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.22, -0.09], t(412) = -2.29, p = 0.022; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.33, -0.03])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.62], t(412) = -0.46, p = 0.642; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.17])

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(412) = 26.03, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.34], t(412) = 0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.11], t(412) = -1.58, p = 0.114; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.03])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.23], t(412) = -1.40, p = 0.163; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.06])

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.45, 31.12], t(412) = 31.28, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.04, 3.15], t(412) = 0.42, p = 0.677; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.49, 95% CI [-2.92, -0.06], t(412) = -2.05, p = 0.040; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.28, -6.17e-03])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.46, 95% CI [-3.53, 0.60], t(412) = -1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.06])

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome	model	npar	AIC	BIC	logLik	deviance	Chisq	Df	p
recovery_stage_a	null	3	1,335.106	1,347.213	-664.553	1,329.106
recovery_stage_a	random	6	1,336.260	1,360.473	-662.130	1,324.260	4.846	3	0.183
recovery_stage_b	null	3	2,030.888	2,042.995	-1,012.444	2,024.888
recovery_stage_b	random	6	2,026.947	2,051.160	-1,007.474	2,014.947	9.941	3	0.019
ras_confidence	null	3	2,529.869	2,541.976	-1,261.935	2,523.869
ras_confidence	random	6	2,512.115	2,536.328	-1,250.057	2,500.115	23.755	3	0.000
ras_willingness	null	3	1,718.856	1,730.963	-856.428	1,712.856
ras_willingness	random	6	1,721.204	1,745.417	-854.602	1,709.204	3.652	3	0.302
ras_goal	null	3	2,090.297	2,102.404	-1,042.149	2,084.297
ras_goal	random	6	2,085.277	2,109.489	-1,036.638	2,073.277	11.021	3	0.012
ras_reliance	null	3	1,978.110	1,990.216	-986.055	1,972.110
ras_reliance	random	6	1,972.899	1,997.112	-980.449	1,960.899	11.211	3	0.011
ras_domination	null	3	1,867.526	1,879.632	-930.763	1,861.526
ras_domination	random	6	1,860.448	1,884.661	-924.224	1,848.448	13.078	3	0.004
symptom	null	3	2,964.299	2,976.405	-1,479.149	2,958.299
symptom	random	6	2,961.186	2,985.399	-1,474.593	2,949.186	9.113	3	0.028
slof_work	null	3	2,354.035	2,366.141	-1,174.017	2,348.035
slof_work	random	6	2,357.055	2,381.268	-1,172.527	2,345.055	2.980	3	0.395
slof_relationship	null	3	2,539.965	2,552.072	-1,266.983	2,533.965
slof_relationship	random	6	2,541.119	2,565.332	-1,264.560	2,529.119	4.846	3	0.183
satisfaction	null	3	2,714.756	2,726.862	-1,354.378	2,708.756
satisfaction	random	6	2,709.315	2,733.527	-1,348.657	2,697.315	11.441	3	0.010
mhc_emotional	null	3	2,151.773	2,163.880	-1,072.887	2,145.773
mhc_emotional	random	6	2,152.616	2,176.829	-1,070.308	2,140.616	5.157	3	0.161
mhc_social	null	3	2,579.144	2,591.251	-1,286.572	2,573.144
mhc_social	random	6	2,577.470	2,601.683	-1,282.735	2,565.470	7.674	3	0.053
mhc_psychological	null	3	2,687.374	2,699.480	-1,340.687	2,681.374
mhc_psychological	random	6	2,686.029	2,710.242	-1,337.015	2,674.029	7.344	3	0.062
resilisnce	null	3	2,337.159	2,349.266	-1,165.580	2,331.159
resilisnce	random	6	2,321.453	2,345.666	-1,154.726	2,309.453	21.706	3	0.000
social_provision	null	3	1,954.918	1,967.025	-974.459	1,948.918
social_provision	random	6	1,950.824	1,975.037	-969.412	1,938.824	10.094	3	0.018
els_value_living	null	3	2,051.142	2,063.248	-1,022.571	2,045.142
els_value_living	random	6	2,047.081	2,071.294	-1,017.540	2,035.081	10.061	3	0.018
els_life_fulfill	null	3	2,062.944	2,075.050	-1,028.472	2,056.944
els_life_fulfill	random	6	2,059.110	2,083.323	-1,023.555	2,047.110	9.834	3	0.020
els	null	3	2,556.310	2,568.416	-1,275.155	2,550.310
els	random	6	2,549.772	2,573.985	-1,268.886	2,537.772	12.537	3	0.006
social_connect	null	3	2,913.384	2,925.491	-1,453.692	2,907.384
social_connect	random	6	2,900.933	2,925.146	-1,444.466	2,888.933	18.451	3	0.000
shs_agency	null	3	2,395.363	2,407.470	-1,194.682	2,389.363
shs_agency	random	6	2,389.629	2,413.842	-1,188.815	2,377.629	11.734	3	0.008
shs_pathway	null	3	2,256.306	2,268.413	-1,125.153	2,250.306
shs_pathway	random	6	2,248.042	2,272.255	-1,118.021	2,236.042	14.265	3	0.003
shs	null	3	2,856.852	2,868.958	-1,425.426	2,850.852
shs	random	6	2,848.104	2,872.317	-1,418.052	2,836.104	14.748	3	0.002
esteem	null	3	1,520.089	1,532.196	-757.045	1,514.089
esteem	random	6	1,524.759	1,548.972	-756.379	1,512.759	1.331	3	0.722
mlq_search	null	3	2,170.834	2,182.941	-1,082.417	2,164.834
mlq_search	random	6	2,170.962	2,195.175	-1,079.481	2,158.962	5.872	3	0.118
mlq_presence	null	3	2,310.026	2,322.132	-1,152.013	2,304.026
mlq_presence	random	6	2,307.053	2,331.266	-1,147.526	2,295.053	8.973	3	0.030
mlq	null	3	2,730.238	2,742.344	-1,362.119	2,724.238
mlq	random	6	2,728.702	2,752.915	-1,358.351	2,716.702	7.536	3	0.057
empower	null	3	2,335.284	2,347.391	-1,164.642	2,329.284
empower	random	6	2,329.794	2,354.007	-1,158.897	2,317.794	11.490	3	0.009
ismi_resistance	null	3	1,924.734	1,936.840	-959.367	1,918.734
ismi_resistance	random	6	1,920.413	1,944.626	-954.207	1,908.413	10.320	3	0.016
ismi_discrimation	null	3	2,070.317	2,082.424	-1,032.159	2,064.317
ismi_discrimation	random	6	2,060.480	2,084.693	-1,024.240	2,048.480	15.837	3	0.001
sss_affective	null	3	2,160.406	2,172.512	-1,077.203	2,154.406
sss_affective	random	6	2,149.712	2,173.925	-1,068.856	2,137.712	16.694	3	0.001
sss_behavior	null	3	2,173.139	2,185.245	-1,083.569	2,167.139
sss_behavior	random	6	2,166.017	2,190.230	-1,077.009	2,154.017	13.122	3	0.004
sss_cognitive	null	3	2,176.001	2,188.107	-1,085.000	2,170.001
sss_cognitive	random	6	2,167.621	2,191.833	-1,077.810	2,155.621	14.380	3	0.002
sss	null	3	3,012.603	3,024.710	-1,503.302	3,006.603
sss	random	6	2,999.916	3,024.129	-1,493.958	2,987.916	18.687	3	0.000

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome	time	control			treatment			between
outcome	time	n	estimate	within es	n	estimate	within es	p	es
recovery_stage_a	1st	125	3.20 ± 1.22		125	3.07 ± 1.22		0.408	0.132
recovery_stage_a	2nd	88	3.21 ± 1.20	-0.008	80	3.39 ± 1.20	-0.329	0.322	-0.189
recovery_stage_b	1st	125	17.88 ± 3.01		125	17.80 ± 3.01		0.834	0.044
recovery_stage_b	2nd	88	17.70 ± 2.82	0.098	80	18.64 ± 2.79	-0.463	0.032	-0.517
ras_confidence	1st	125	29.69 ± 5.65		125	30.02 ± 5.65		0.639	-0.115
ras_confidence	2nd	88	30.46 ± 5.18	-0.264	80	32.08 ± 5.09	-0.704	0.042	-0.555
ras_willingness	1st	125	11.62 ± 2.08		125	11.66 ± 2.08		0.903	-0.025
ras_willingness	2nd	88	11.61 ± 1.95	0.008	80	12.00 ± 1.93	-0.275	0.194	-0.308
ras_goal	1st	125	17.18 ± 3.28		125	17.53 ± 3.28		0.407	-0.183
ras_goal	2nd	88	17.52 ± 3.05	-0.180	80	18.35 ± 3.01	-0.436	0.079	-0.439
ras_reliance	1st	125	13.14 ± 2.94		125	13.33 ± 2.94		0.622	-0.119
ras_reliance	2nd	88	13.48 ± 2.71	-0.214	80	14.03 ± 2.66	-0.453	0.182	-0.357
ras_domination	1st	125	9.95 ± 2.40		125	9.56 ± 2.40		0.198	0.249
ras_domination	2nd	88	10.01 ± 2.29	-0.035	80	10.43 ± 2.27	-0.551	0.234	-0.266
symptom	1st	125	31.50 ± 9.76		125	30.21 ± 9.76		0.298	0.262
symptom	2nd	88	29.94 ± 8.92	0.318	80	28.78 ± 8.74	0.291	0.396	0.236
slof_work	1st	125	22.06 ± 4.58		125	22.06 ± 4.58		0.989	0.003
slof_work	2nd	88	22.43 ± 4.25	-0.143	80	22.61 ± 4.18	-0.219	0.776	-0.073
slof_relationship	1st	125	24.50 ± 5.73		125	25.34 ± 5.73		0.248	-0.267
slof_relationship	2nd	88	24.71 ± 5.30	-0.065	80	26.10 ± 5.22	-0.240	0.088	-0.442
satisfaction	1st	125	19.66 ± 7.22		125	21.03 ± 7.22		0.135	-0.377
satisfaction	2nd	88	20.83 ± 6.60	-0.322	80	22.23 ± 6.47	-0.330	0.166	-0.386
mhc_emotional	1st	125	10.65 ± 3.73		125	11.00 ± 3.73		0.456	-0.191
mhc_emotional	2nd	88	11.09 ± 3.40	-0.238	80	11.41 ± 3.33	-0.224	0.531	-0.177
mhc_social	1st	125	15.13 ± 6.09		125	15.13 ± 6.09		1.000	0.000
mhc_social	2nd	88	15.98 ± 5.60	-0.268	80	16.18 ± 5.49	-0.331	0.817	-0.062
mhc_psychological	1st	125	21.55 ± 7.03		125	21.87 ± 7.03		0.719	-0.091
mhc_psychological	2nd	88	22.71 ± 6.42	-0.330	80	22.73 ± 6.30	-0.244	0.985	-0.005
resilisnce	1st	125	16.18 ± 4.37		125	16.94 ± 4.37		0.170	-0.309
resilisnce	2nd	88	16.98 ± 4.06	-0.327	80	18.37 ± 4.00	-0.581	0.027	-0.563
social_provision	1st	125	13.17 ± 2.81		125	13.91 ± 2.81		0.037	-0.472
social_provision	2nd	88	12.99 ± 2.61	0.111	80	14.25 ± 2.57	-0.216	0.002	-0.799
els_value_living	1st	125	16.76 ± 3.19		125	17.15 ± 3.19		0.331	-0.227
els_value_living	2nd	88	17.09 ± 2.94	-0.189	80	17.85 ± 2.89	-0.401	0.093	-0.439
els_life_fulfill	1st	125	12.41 ± 3.30		125	13.10 ± 3.30		0.096	-0.413
els_life_fulfill	2nd	88	12.67 ± 3.02	-0.152	80	13.68 ± 2.96	-0.340	0.029	-0.600
els	1st	125	29.17 ± 6.03		125	30.26 ± 6.03		0.155	-0.370
els	2nd	88	29.76 ± 5.49	-0.202	80	31.52 ± 5.37	-0.430	0.037	-0.598
social_connect	1st	125	27.88 ± 9.16		125	26.66 ± 9.16		0.295	0.271
social_connect	2nd	88	27.24 ± 8.34	0.143	80	23.96 ± 8.17	0.602	0.011	0.729
shs_agency	1st	125	13.84 ± 5.02		125	14.85 ± 5.02		0.113	-0.422
shs_agency	2nd	88	14.15 ± 4.55	-0.128	80	15.84 ± 4.46	-0.413	0.016	-0.707
shs_pathway	1st	125	15.33 ± 4.08		125	16.34 ± 4.08		0.052	-0.465
shs_pathway	2nd	88	15.76 ± 3.76	-0.201	80	17.23 ± 3.69	-0.411	0.011	-0.675
shs	1st	125	29.17 ± 8.67		125	31.18 ± 8.67		0.067	-0.486
shs	2nd	88	29.91 ± 7.88	-0.178	80	33.05 ± 7.71	-0.451	0.009	-0.759
esteem	1st	125	12.80 ± 1.56		125	12.73 ± 1.56		0.716	0.063
esteem	2nd	88	12.61 ± 1.51	0.166	80	12.73 ± 1.50	-0.005	0.600	-0.107
mlq_search	1st	125	14.36 ± 3.47		125	15.08 ± 3.47		0.102	-0.313
mlq_search	2nd	88	15.08 ± 3.31	-0.314	80	15.07 ± 3.28	0.004	0.980	0.005
mlq_presence	1st	125	13.15 ± 4.25		125	13.62 ± 4.25		0.389	-0.188
mlq_presence	2nd	88	13.68 ± 3.97	-0.214	80	14.52 ± 3.91	-0.366	0.169	-0.340
mlq	1st	125	27.51 ± 6.95		125	28.70 ± 6.95		0.179	-0.281
mlq	2nd	88	28.77 ± 6.53	-0.298	80	29.58 ± 6.45	-0.211	0.415	-0.194
empower	1st	125	18.85 ± 4.53		125	19.38 ± 4.53		0.357	-0.223
empower	2nd	88	19.59 ± 4.16	-0.315	80	20.28 ± 4.08	-0.382	0.281	-0.291
ismi_resistance	1st	125	14.36 ± 2.53		125	14.35 ± 2.53		0.980	0.005
ismi_resistance	2nd	88	14.53 ± 2.43	-0.097	80	15.18 ± 2.42	-0.465	0.086	-0.364
ismi_discrimation	1st	125	11.79 ± 3.07		125	11.70 ± 3.07		0.821	0.045
ismi_discrimation	2nd	88	11.35 ± 2.91	0.223	80	10.61 ± 2.88	0.555	0.098	0.377
sss_affective	1st	125	10.40 ± 3.64		125	10.62 ± 3.64		0.627	-0.117
sss_affective	2nd	88	10.00 ± 3.35	0.211	80	9.48 ± 3.29	0.599	0.313	0.271
sss_behavior	1st	125	10.18 ± 3.72		125	10.10 ± 3.72		0.865	0.041
sss_behavior	2nd	88	9.52 ± 3.42	0.338	80	9.25 ± 3.36	0.438	0.602	0.141
sss_cognitive	1st	125	8.71 ± 3.74		125	9.12 ± 3.74		0.389	-0.211
sss_cognitive	2nd	88	8.26 ± 3.43	0.234	80	8.09 ± 3.37	0.532	0.748	0.087
sss	1st	125	29.29 ± 10.47		125	29.84 ± 10.47		0.677	-0.112
sss	2nd	88	27.80 ± 9.48	0.304	80	26.88 ± 9.27	0.602	0.529	0.186

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(373.96) = -0.83, p = 0.408, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.18)

2st

t(410.89) = 0.99, p = 0.322, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.55)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(317.60) = -0.21, p = 0.834, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.67)

2st

t(391.45) = 2.16, p = 0.032, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (0.08 to 1.79)

ras_confidence

1st

t(297.76) = 0.47, p = 0.639, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.74)

2st

t(372.39) = 2.04, p = 0.042, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (0.06 to 3.18)

ras_willingness

1st

t(319.71) = 0.12, p = 0.903, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.55)

2st

t(392.91) = 1.30, p = 0.194, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.98)

ras_goal

1st

t(310.48) = 0.83, p = 0.407, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.16)

2st

t(385.82) = 1.76, p = 0.079, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.74)

ras_reliance

1st

t(300.03) = 0.49, p = 0.622, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.92)

2st

t(375.16) = 1.34, p = 0.182, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.37)

ras_domination

1st

t(331.93) = -1.29, p = 0.198, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.21)

2st

t(399.78) = 1.19, p = 0.234, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.11)

symptom

1st

t(294.93) = -1.04, p = 0.298, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-3.72 to 1.14)

2st

t(368.69) = -0.85, p = 0.396, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-3.84 to 1.52)

slof_work

1st

t(306.67) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.13)

2st

t(382.29) = 0.29, p = 0.776, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.46)

slof_relationship

1st

t(304.86) = 1.16, p = 0.248, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.27)

2st

t(380.48) = 1.71, p = 0.088, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.21 to 2.99)

satisfaction

1st

t(294.86) = 1.50, p = 0.135, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.43 to 3.17)

2st

t(368.59) = 1.39, p = 0.166, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.58 to 3.38)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(293.30) = 0.75, p = 0.456, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.28)

2st

t(366.42) = 0.63, p = 0.531, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.35)

mhc_social

1st

t(298.62) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.52 to 1.52)

2st

t(373.45) = 0.23, p = 0.817, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.49 to 1.88)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(294.34) = 0.36, p = 0.719, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.07)

2st

t(367.88) = 0.02, p = 0.985, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.91 to 1.95)

resilisnce

1st

t(308.21) = 1.37, p = 0.170, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.85)

2st

t(383.77) = 2.23, p = 0.027, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (0.16 to 2.61)

social_provision

1st

t(307.94) = 2.10, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.44)

2st

t(383.51) = 3.15, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (0.47 to 2.05)

els_value_living

1st

t(303.56) = 0.97, p = 0.331, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.18)

2st

t(379.12) = 1.68, p = 0.093, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.64)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(296.75) = 1.67, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.52)

2st

t(371.09) = 2.19, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.10 to 1.92)

els

1st

t(291.94) = 1.43, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.59)

2st

t(364.45) = 2.10, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.11 to 3.41)

social_connect

1st

t(292.36) = -1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.50 to 1.06)

2st

t(365.06) = -2.57, p = 0.011, Cohen d = 0.73, 95% CI (-5.78 to -0.77)

shs_agency

1st

t(289.71) = 1.59, p = 0.113, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.26)

2st

t(361.05) = 2.43, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (0.32 to 3.06)

shs_pathway

1st

t(300.76) = 1.95, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.01 to 2.02)

2st

t(376.01) = 2.54, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.33 to 2.59)

shs

1st

t(290.00) = 1.84, p = 0.067, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.14 to 4.18)

2st

t(361.50) = 2.62, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (0.78 to 5.51)

esteem

1st

t(353.78) = -0.36, p = 0.716, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.32)

2st

t(407.26) = 0.52, p = 0.600, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.34 to 0.58)

mlq_search

1st

t(334.55) = 1.64, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)

2st

t(400.95) = -0.02, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.99)

mlq_presence

1st

t(312.47) = 0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.52)

2st

t(387.51) = 1.38, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.36 to 2.04)

mlq

1st

t(319.03) = 1.35, p = 0.179, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.54 to 2.91)

2st

t(392.44) = 0.82, p = 0.415, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.79)

empower

1st

t(298.96) = 0.92, p = 0.357, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.65)

2st

t(373.87) = 1.08, p = 0.281, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.56 to 1.94)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(345.98) = -0.02, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.64 to 0.62)

2st

t(405.13) = 1.72, p = 0.086, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.38)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(328.37) = -0.23, p = 0.821, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.68)

2st

t(398.03) = -1.66, p = 0.098, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.62 to 0.14)

sss_affective

1st

t(299.58) = 0.49, p = 0.627, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.13)

2st

t(374.62) = -1.01, p = 0.313, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.53 to 0.49)

sss_behavior

1st

t(298.80) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.85)

2st

t(373.67) = -0.52, p = 0.602, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.30 to 0.76)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(297.71) = 0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)

2st

t(372.33) = -0.32, p = 0.748, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.20 to 0.86)

sss

1st

t(288.34) = 0.42, p = 0.677, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.16)

2st

t(358.86) = -0.63, p = 0.529, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.76 to 1.94)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(211.09) = 2.20, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.03 to 0.60)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(190.52) = 3.02, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.29 to 1.39)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(183.69) = 4.54, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (1.16 to 2.95)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(191.25) = 1.80, p = 0.148, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.03 to 0.73)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(188.07) = 2.83, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.39)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(184.48) = 2.93, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.18)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(195.48) = 3.61, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (0.39 to 1.34)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(182.72) = -1.88, p = 0.124, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.93 to 0.07)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(186.76) = 1.42, p = 0.316, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.33)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(186.14) = 1.56, p = 0.243, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.71)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(182.69) = 2.13, p = 0.069, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.09 to 2.31)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(182.16) = 1.44, p = 0.301, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.15 to 0.98)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(183.99) = 2.13, p = 0.068, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.08 to 2.02)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(182.52) = 1.57, p = 0.235, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.94)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(187.29) = 3.77, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.68 to 2.18)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(187.20) = 1.40, p = 0.325, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.14 to 0.82)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(185.69) = 2.60, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.17 to 1.22)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(183.35) = 2.19, p = 0.059, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.06 to 1.09)

els

1st vs 2st

t(181.69) = 2.77, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.36 to 2.17)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(181.83) = -3.87, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-4.08 to -1.33)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(180.91) = 2.66, p = 0.017, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.72)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(184.73) = 2.66, p = 0.017, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.55)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(181.01) = 2.90, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.60 to 3.14)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(203.29) = 0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.34)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(196.40) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.68)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(188.75) = 2.38, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.15 to 1.65)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(191.01) = 1.37, p = 0.342, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.39 to 2.16)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(184.11) = 2.47, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.18 to 1.62)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(200.45) = 3.07, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.30 to 1.36)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(194.24) = -3.63, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-1.69 to -0.50)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(184.32) = -3.87, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-1.73 to -0.56)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(184.05) = -2.83, p = 0.010, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-1.44 to -0.26)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(183.68) = -3.43, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.62 to -0.44)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(180.44) = -3.87, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-4.47 to -1.45)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(201.59) = 0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.28)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(185.40) = -0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.35)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(180.03) = 1.79, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.62)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(185.98) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.38 to 0.36)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(183.47) = 1.22, p = 0.445, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.88)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(180.64) = 1.45, p = 0.297, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.12 to 0.78)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(189.31) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.40 to 0.51)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(179.26) = -2.15, p = 0.066, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-2.99 to -0.13)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(182.44) = 0.97, p = 0.667, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.10)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(181.95) = 0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.71 to 1.12)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(179.24) = 2.17, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.11 to 2.23)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(178.81) = 1.61, p = 0.219, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.10 to 0.98)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(180.26) = 1.81, p = 0.143, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.78)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(179.10) = 2.23, p = 0.054, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.13 to 2.19)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(182.86) = 2.22, p = 0.055, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.52)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(182.79) = -0.75, p = 0.907, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.28)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(181.60) = 1.28, p = 0.403, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.83)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(179.75) = 1.03, p = 0.609, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.24 to 0.75)

els

1st vs 2st

t(178.44) = 1.36, p = 0.348, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.45)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(178.56) = -0.97, p = 0.670, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.96 to 0.67)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(177.83) = 0.86, p = 0.780, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.01)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(180.84) = 1.36, p = 0.350, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.07)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(177.91) = 1.20, p = 0.461, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.95)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(195.45) = -1.15, p = 0.505, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-0.51 to 0.14)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(190.03) = 2.16, p = 0.065, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.06 to 1.39)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(184.01) = 1.46, p = 0.294, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.25)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(185.79) = 2.03, p = 0.087, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.04 to 2.47)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(180.35) = 2.13, p = 0.069, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.43)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(193.22) = 0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.34 to 0.68)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(188.33) = -1.52, p = 0.259, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.13)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(180.52) = -1.43, p = 0.309, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-0.96 to 0.15)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(180.31) = -2.29, p = 0.047, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-1.22 to -0.09)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(180.01) = -1.58, p = 0.232, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.11)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(177.46) = -2.05, p = 0.084, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-2.93 to -0.05)

Pathway Summary

Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Measurement

Table

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Text

Likelihood ratio tests

Post hoc analysis

Table

Between group

Within treatment group

Within control group

Plot

Clinical significance